Pill Fight!

I believe I’ve made it clear where I stand on the whole “forcing religious charities to cover birth control in their insurance policies” issue:

1) I am pro-choice (mostly), pro-birth control, pro-women’s rights and anti-Religious Right Nutbaggery.

2) I think forcing insurance to cover birth control is misguided and a ridiculous intrusion into free markets.

3) The religious issues the Catholic Church has with this mandate only increase my opposition.

The bullshit on this issue, however, is only getting deeper with each passing day. The latest layer of manure being slathered on by the Left is the poll that shows that a majority of Catholics support the measure. But this is such an obviously bogus argument, I feel lame even responding to it. First, it doesn’t matter if 90% of the public support the idea; it’s still wrong. Second, it doesn’t matter if the majority of Catholics support it; it’s still a violation of religious liberty for those who don’t. Our Republic is not supposed to be about the majority forcing their will on a minority. Third, the point is especially bogus because the Catholic Church has an official leadership. And even though they are obscenely out of touch with reality (today, they offensively withdrew their apology for letting the sex abuse scandal happen), they are still the leadership and they still set official policy for innumerable vital hospitals, schools and charities. And finally, the poll states that “Majority of Catholics Think Employers Should Be Required to Provide Health Care Plans that Cover Birth Control at No Cost”. But there is no such thing as providing birth control at no cost. All the mandate does is hide the cost in higher insurance premiums. So the poll is based entirely on a false premise.

But the question I keep returning to is this: Why? Why are fighting this fight? Yes, Wonkblog, you had a thought?

And a lot of this likely isn’t about Catholic voters at all.

Rather, it may well be about the demographics that are most supportive of this particular health reform provision: young voters and women. In the PRRI poll, both groups register support above 60 percent for the provision.

Those two demographics are important here for a key reason: they were crucial to Obama’s victory in 2008. Third Way crunched the numbers earlier this month and found that the “Obama Independents” — the swing group that proved crucial to his 2008 victory — are, as Ryan Lizza put it, “disproportionately young, female and secular.”

In other words, its about rallying liberal and independents and trying to paint Republicans as religious extremists. It’s about the election.

This is why Obamacare was a bad idea and why it will become a worse idea. Thanks to PPACA, every healthcare decision, every insurance provision, every medical approval is politicized. We have an HHS making decisions on health policy based not, as they assured a million times during the PPACA fight, on facts, data and science … but on polls, demographics and interest groups.

It’s only going to get worse. The bill for all these mandates is only going to get bigger. And the process will only become more politicized.

This is why you don’t put the government in charge of healthcare. Because, from now on, every medical issue is going to become an exercise in political bullshittery. Every drug and procedure will carefully probed for which interest groups support it rather than how effective it is. Our entire healthcare system will be seen through the lens of politics, not science.

Pay close attention to the Pill Fight. Because this is just the beginning.

Comments are closed.

  1. Seattle Outcast

    In the long run it’s nothing more than a scam designed to hand over control of your life to the government. If they are paying the bill for your medical care, they get to decide what things you don’t get to do any longer because it costs too much for them to cover.

    We’re all familiar with government telling us what food we shouldn’t eat, how much exercise we need to get, how much we should weigh, asking if we have guns as a “health issue”, etc, etc, etc – that’s nothing compared to what it will be like under all-government health care. Expect to see laws dictating almost every aspect of your life how often you get to eat out to what sports you are allowed to participate in, lest your health insurance suddenly stops covering you.

    Since there won’t be any competing insurance, you won’t be able to shop around to find someone that will cover your lifestyle.

    Thumb up 1

  2. balthazar

    How is paying for birth control? How about some personal resposibility for your actions? If you want to have sex, and not get pregnant, oe impregnate someone, BUY SOME CONDOMS. Jesus christ people this is assinine.

    Thumb up 0

  3. Hal_10000 *

    WSJ made another great point. If BCP coverage is mandated, there will be no incentive for drug companies to develop cheaper, safer, better birth control.

    Thumb up 0

  4. AlexInCT

    Wait until government tells all Scientologists they have to give up their special trreatement or Xenu. Oh, wait. The Scientologists have lawyers and tend to be demcorats.

    And why is Obama not pushing for viagra for everyone? Boner alert!

    In other words, its about rallying liberal and independents and trying to paint Republicans as religious extremists. It’s about the election.

    NO F-ING WAY YOU %$&*#*(#&^*! Obama is doing this because HE CARES!

    Thumb up 2

  5. Kimpost

    WSJ made another great point. If BCP coverage is mandated, there will be no incentive for drug companies to develop cheaper, safer, better birth control.

    That I don’t get. And if it were true couldn’t the same argument be made for pretty much anything mandated? Why wouldn’t a caregiver want to buy better and cheaper birth control?

    Thumb up 0

  6. JimK

    Because they already have a product that works, has recouped its research cost and has guaranteed sales due to the mandated payments they’ll receive. There’s no incentive to improve.

    Thumb up 2

  7. AlexInCT

    Why wouldn’t a caregiver want to buy better and cheaper birth control?

    Why would the care giver care what the consumer thinks when government forces people to pony up regardless of how stupid high your cost is? Look at the problems with our subsidized higher education here in the US – the government involvement in the student loans process – and you will see exactly what will happen: costs of the products will go up, the quality will go down.

    Contrary to the dearly held notion that people should do things for charity, the ability to make money remains the number one incentive to push for good behavior/innovation. If I can charge you whatever I want for a crappy product and you can’t opt out – and have no doubt that what a government mandate means is that you can’t opt out – you are fucked.

    Thumb up 0

  8. Kimpost

    Because they already have a product that works, has recouped its research cost and has guaranteed sales due to the mandated payments they’ll receive. There’s no incentive to improve.

    Competitors presumably wants to get their hands on some large contracts too.

    Why would the care giver care what the consumer thinks when government forces people to pony up regardless of how stupid high your cost is?

    Higher profit margins would probably be incentive enough.

    I’m not arguing for or against birth control being covered (it’s not in Sweden), but this particular line of reasoning isn’t that solid, IMO.

    Thumb up 0

  9. Poosh

    Birth control still has a long way to go, destroying the incentive to advance it would be destructive – and also, what about male-birth control? Last time I checked that’s so very close to being made. If you’re throwing it free to everyone, female birth control, then male birth-control is less likely to be advanced. What’s the point?

    Abortion and birth-control are vital to the freedom and liberty of all females. Removing the free-market mechanisms that advance its sophistication and science can only hinder sexual equality.

    Of course don’t expect that many liberals to actually grasp how damaging this could be, they don’t ACTUALLY care about the freedom of women – they only care about the posture or vote.

    And I hope Catholics finally realise that Obama’s Democrats are NOT watching their backs. Obama and his supporters are THEIR ENEMIES.

    Thumb up 0

  10. Seattle Outcast

    Higher profit margins would probably be incentive enough.

    Let’s assume you are in the business of manufacturing and selling birth control pills. You have a guaranteed customer base, no competition, and a product that requires no further research and development. Better yet, it’s all profit at this point as the R&D costs have been paid off for many years.

    What is your motivation to invest in a better product? Hell, why even invest in better packaging?

    Thumb up 3

  11. Seattle Outcast

    Let’s take it a bit further.

    You do decide to invest in further research and develop a better product. Now you have to convince the government to allow doctors to prescribe your more expensive (but “better” birth control).

    They won’t do it because the existing product is not only cheaper but works “good enough” – innovation is actively stifled.

    Thumb up 1

  12. Kimpost

    But the pill wouldn’t be free. The pill would be paid for through higher premiums. Pharmaceuticals therefore would continue to make heaps of money selling it to care givers. And they would still compete with each other to make better and cheaper products. Perhaps even more so, considering the higher demand.

    Of course don’t expect that many liberals to actually grasp how damaging this could be, they don’t ACTUALLY care about the freedom of women – they only care about the posture or vote.

    I think that it’s safe to assume that liberals in general do care about “the freedom of women”. Unless of course, you think that pretty regular people only care about votes or posture.

    Your conspiracy theory might work better when applied to some kind of political class?

    Thumb up 0

  13. Kimpost

    Let’s take it a bit further.

    You do decide to invest in further research and develop a better product. Now you have to convince the government to allow doctors to prescribe your more expensive (but “better” birth control).

    They won’t do it because the existing product is not only cheaper but works “good enough” – innovation is actively stifled.

    That could be a legitimate point, but not based on how Obamacare works today. In a future perversion you could end up with death panels, rationing and stifled innovation, but none of it needs to happen. Just like a police force doesn’t need to end up in a police state.

    Thumb up 0

  14. Seattle Outcast

    How it works today is not how it will work in ten years, and not how “they” want it to work even now. The American left has been pushing for Canadian style health care for decades, where the government is pretty much in control of the entire health and medical industry.

    It’s a great place to see hospitals using equipment that was new 40 years ago and hasn’t been maintained properly. Great for broken bones and dispensing antibiotics, but replete with lengthy waits for what in the US is considered routine and minor surgery.

    For some odd reason, much of Canada is trying to reform their heath care to allow in free-enterprise competition.

    Thumb up 0

  15. Seattle Outcast

    The pill would be paid for through higher premiums. Pharmaceuticals therefore would continue to make heaps of money selling it to care givers. And they would still compete with each other to make better and cheaper products

    What competition?

    The government will simply buy the cheapest one on an extended contract in order to save money and everyone else will cease manufacturing a competing product that has no buyers.

    Thumb up 0

  16. Poosh

    Not a conspiracy theory kim-post. It’s a basic observation about motive. Not just for liberals but many different people with different claims. When I say posture, I mean they desire people to think certain thoughts about them.

    For example, many Christians aren’t concerned about “religion” or “God” or the divine, they claim they are, but in actual fact they are concerned with feelings of superiority, or fulfilling their desire to be part of a tribe and so forth.

    Correct me if I’m wrong, as the American Healthcare System is confusing from my POV, but isn’t it the case that the Hospital etc merely charges and uses whatever it wants, and if the insurance covers it, they’ll charge the full price of whatever the hell they want, without interest in cost. Thus the insurance company will have to cough up the cost. I find it difficult to see the space where the free-market logic takes affect here. The hospital has no incentive to buy the cheapest or most efficient. Most citizens (is this not the case (?)) have no choice in their insurance as its linked to their job (?). The Insurance Company is obliged to follow whatever its agreed to pay. I see no incentive for a hospital to choose the cheapest or most efficient product. Though I see obvious reasons to choose a product that is superior to all, but that is not always the motivating factor.

    Thumb up 1

  17. Miguelito

    It’s a great place to see hospitals using equipment that was new 40 years ago and hasn’t been maintained properly. Great for broken bones and dispensing antibiotics, but replete with lengthy waits for what in the US is considered routine and minor surgery.

    I’ve seen several things on shows like Dateline several years ago showing how this was true for people. Their pets, on the other hand… they could get them things like MRIs with new equipment with little to no waiting time. Sure, they paid a lot for it, but nearly every person interviewed felt they should have the same options for themselves and loved ones.. but don’t (or didn’t then at least).

    Thumb up 0

  18. AlexInCT

    I may be late to bring this up, but did anyone actually make the connection between what Stephanopoulos asked republicans during one of those many debates, a question that made everyone wtf he was thinking, and the fact that not even a month later the WH pulled this stunt? Seriously, George’s question about birth control could be one of those rare coincidences, but what are the odds that one of the big names in the LSM, one straight out of the bowel of the democrat political machine, and one of the “playhas” that worked to elect Obama, out of nowhere and on his own decides to ask a question about contraceptives?

    Looks like the LSM and the WH are together in bed, to me. This was a coordinated effort to either feel out the republicans or set them up for the WH to screw them over later. Hold on to your seats people. If you thought we would be getting a free & fair election, the fact that the WH is using members of the supposed free press to steer the political debate and set up the opposition candidates, should dissuade you of any of that. At a minimum we are going to get more of what we got in 2008 from the press, and it looks like they are willing and ready to keep doing the democrat’s dirty work for them.

    Of course, this sort of incestous behavior by our press doesn’t cause any of these liberals that claim to be championing a free society any lause of sleep. In their mind the end justifies the means. And that makes them just another arm of the state as long as the “right” party is in charge. At least you knew to expect propaganda from Pradva, while too many Americans still feel the LSM can/should be trusted.

    Queue you average leftist telling me the LSM has no bias, and I am the one that believes in conspiracy theories, even as the facts, as we keep discovering them, keep pointing to this unholy alliance and the existing bias.

    Thumb up 0